User talk:NeilN

Update

Got another month of this 80-90 hours/week work thing then I should be returning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, best of luck, Neil! We look forward to having you back. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Richard Parks

Neil, last september you sock protected the article from IPs repeatedly reverting info. A recent IP has started doing exactly the same today, with some very similar edit-summaries. Almost certainly a sock of the previous one I'd say. Worth an SPI or can you just protect the page? Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You really want an article to claim that the Earth has three poles? I mean seriously - you really do want that? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You were shown what the community wants, last September. So now you will be shown again. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You like your personal attacks, don't you? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately,, once you have called editors vandals, and accused them of idiocy, in your edit summaries, you cannot reasonably expect a positive response. I note your keenness to discuss this on any talk page but your own. I will not be replying here; indeed, I expect the latter part of this discussion to be hatted by a talk-page watcher. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So why have you repeatedly falsely accused me of vandalism? What response did you expect, exactly? 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note This user has been blocked for edit-warring on another article. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

21ST EMPIRE AWARDS

Can you make new page about 21st Empire Awards?

IreneTandry (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaaaack

And our inane original research vandal is back at 2601:989:0:3D7E:81D:CDFE:FB40:4076 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), starting to editwar again at list of fictional cats in animation and list of fictional wolves now that both pages' page protection has expired. I put in requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have both pages indefinitely semi-protected as the vandal will keep coming back to reinsert its inanity over and over again unless physically stopped.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the Saffron terror article

The Saffron terror article is politically motivated and completely based on allegation there is no real proof. There is no verdict from the court to any of the organization which are mentioned in the article. So this article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargunareddiar (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tut the Nut is back

In September you protected the page List of monarchs by nickname because of a persistent IP vandal who repeatedly inserted "Tut the Nut" into the list and bragged about it on-line. This protection seems to have expired and an IP editor has started putting it in again, this time with a concocted blog page as a reference. The IP editor has also accused me of vandalism for reverting with the comment that the blog post was not a reliable source. Could you please re-establish the protection for this list. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dabbler. I hope that you are well. NeilN is still away from WIkiP and hasn't edited since leaving an update a few thread above this one on March 9. You may want to file a WP:RFPP to stop the problems that you are dealing with. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see the vandal was waiting to pounce as soon as Neil's 6-month protection expired, Dabbler. I've made it a year. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Verifiability and Truth

Greetings. I happened upon a certain talk page and came upon the following statement you made: " 'Verifiability, not truth' has been deprecated as an editing philosophy for a few years now." This is news to me - and quite astounding news, to be frank. Where are we supposed to get this "truth" if not through what Wikipedia continues to unequivocally demand, i.e. third-party, reliable sources? The truth will not be and shall not be defined by an editor's personal work since this kind of input continues to be strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Hence, my puzzlement. Could you, please, elaborate on your statement? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome. "Verifiability, not truth" fell out of favor because it was recognized that reliable sources do make mistakes and insisting on propagating these mistakes in Wikipedia articles just because they appeared in print somewhere was not exactly sensible. Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC has a lot more comments about the topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And thanks for the pointer about the 2012 RfC. The rules about the criteria for inclusion of information in Wikipedia articles have not changed as much as your claim makes it out to be. We are still relying on third-party, reliable sources for what goes into Wikipedia articles. A subsequently published essay makes quite clear what has happened and what we are now doing, post-RfC, which is not altogether much different than what we were doing before. To wit:

The Verifiability policy, [which] was...re-written in 2012 to clarify [the dispute about Verifiability and Truth], [states] that Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.

My emphasis. The above is quite clear. In fact, the essay is specific that the previous rules' "core message remains the same." Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Unless we have verified it beforehand with a reliable source, we may not add content just because we believe it is true, nor we may delete content that we may believe to be untrue. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I agree with most of what you've said but have a quibble with "nor we may delete content that we may believe to be untrue". Part of your quote is the reason why we can delete or disclaim such content. "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth." The canonical Wikipedia example is probably Jimmy Wales' birth date - one short discussion can be found here: Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. We have sources that state it is one date, but it is probably another. So, yes, material added to Wikipedia must be previously published in a reliable source but sometimes just chanting, "it's verifiable!" is not enough to retain the material if good faith doubts from impartial editors are raised as to the accuracy of the source. With increased focus on the quality of BLP articles, there's an increased determination of getting the facts "right". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are but still cannot understand who the "impartial editors" could be if they are not us. When there is a dispute, the matter goes or should go into a wider discussion, or even an RfC. On the basis of the good-faith assumption, I do not prejudge other editors as partial or impartial. So, chanting "it's not true" does not cut it, either. The example you gave of Jimmy Wales' birthday strengthens the argument for verifiability: When sources indicate one version of events, we need to back up any alternative version with sources before we offer it in the article. Otherwise, your "probably another is true" would be equivalent to personal opinion. In your example, we have the input of Wales himself! Which is, of course, allowed and quite legitimate in biographies of living persons, with the usual, known precautions and caveats. In so many words, we are using the testimony of the subject of the article as a source. Without sources we have very little Wiki-worthy, if anything. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm Back!

Just wanted today hello and I'm glad you are feeling better. Happy Easter to my favorite Wiki Admin! Keep up the good work girl! CheckersBoard (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note from IP

Neil very sorry to bother you I'm am not good with computers or with wiki but your reversion of ozone park boys keeps coming up when the name Michael pippi Fiducia is googled with false accusations . Most of it is in your language . If you could get it taken down some how it would be greatly appreciated sorry to write you on here but I did not know any other way to contact you like I explained I am not very good with computers the reversion keeps showing up I would really like it taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.165.239 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 April 2016‎

Mass deleting without required local consensus

Hi, NeilN. Navbox guidelines state that inclusion or exclusion is a decision only to be made by consensus of local editors of the article.

As a courtesy we were having such an informal discussion on the talk page of Michael Laucke when a non-article editor showed up (Robsinden), cast a vote and 2 minutes later started mass deleting navboxes from similar articles. There are hundreds of articles that will be affected under this.

What is the procedure to put a moratorium on their mass, undiscussed navbox deletions? They are not an expert in the topic matter of the pages the navboxes are being deleted from (classical guitar). They already deleted all the navboxes from flamenco guitar articles (also hundreds). Again, this is supposed to be discussed at each article's talk page, and the consensus is reached by editors that actually edit the article‍—‌that way it is a local consensus.

I can pull up the guidelines for all this if you need it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Just wanted to let you know that NeilN is still away from WikiP. N has not edited since early March so you may not get a response to this any time soon. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

History of the Qur'an

NielN, I gather that you may be away from Wikipedia for a bit; but if you are able to, you input would be much appreciated in respect of the poblematic section on the 1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an on the History of the Quran article. I gather that you properly reverted a substantial chunk of that section for copyright violation; but now in seeking to formulate an alternative wording for the section in question, it would be a help if you were able to specify the particular phrases and paragraphs that created the problem. Many thanks. TomHennell (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way here's your revert for copy-vio: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=665066207

19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

NeilN, sorry to press you, as we note from the post above that you said in March that you were likely to be heavily engaged on other projects for several weeks. We would, however, greatly value your input into providing a properly formulated section on the 1924 Cairo edition in the History of the Quran article. We don't intend to proceed with restoring any agreed text into the article itself until after the end of May 2016 at the earliest; but if you would like to take part in this re-edit and do not have the time to do so currently, we would happily wait a bit longer, although not indefinitely. But if you do intend to take part and would like us to defer, please post to that effect on the talk page before the end of May. TomHennell (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Where's Neil?

Seriously, where the hell is Neil? Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't know. I recall that he gave a rational explanation for his absence, which left me with the continuing impression that there was nothing to worry about. I am worried that there are arcane by-laws in one of the darker corners of wikipedia that might say something to the effect that if an admin doesn't use the tools for a certain period of time, they will be removed. Other than that, I shall return to lurking. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

He hasn’t been away for that long. I’m sure he’s enjoying a nice vacation after all that hectic work. After all, more hectic work is what awaits him here.- NQ (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Like you're one to talk. Disappearing for months on end while we wring our hands over you like grandmothers. Pah. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It's a year of no edits or admin actions. WP:INACTIVITY. He's not nearly there yet. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. I think he is the only admin I actually voted for. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Still here. Client asked for a phase two and made me an "offer I couldn't refuse" (monetarily wise). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

More Vandalism On Tommy Sotomayor Page

As you can see here, these three accounts have been vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.12.67.139

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:601:E00:309C:7CE5:D6AC:BFB1:2DE3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:C7C6:4A00:1017:FC58:F62E:E066

If you could possibly block these accounts and IP addresses, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident, NeilN is on an extended wiki-break, so you should seek help from another admin, or a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up!!! Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for page protection.

Is it possible to protect this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura. Someone using multiple IP addresses has been repeatedly making a change. They have refused to discuss it on the article's talk page and just throws out insults when making the edit. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN is on an extended wiki-break. Please take the issue to WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm (somewhat) back

Should be on here a couple hours a day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought when I saw an edit by you earlier that it'd been a while since I'd seen you. Welcome back. General Ization ^Talk 04:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you back; as the many comments above attest, you've been missed. Hope your wiki-break was highly profitable! --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

... waves paw ... "hi" ... -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you even somewhat. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC).

Oh, thank God. ;-) Katie^talk 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the welcome back everyone. Poking around I see we have a new 30/500 protection level for some areas. Arbcom-level drama also seems to be remarkably low. Anything else I should be aware of? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Woohoo! Hmm... there's two new permissions, WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED (for 30/500 protection) and the very poorly named WP:PAGEMOVER... we now have cross-wiki notifications... the bugs and feature requests you made for Twinkle have still gone unresolved... What else... User:Widr now sports a mop, so you don't need to do any WP:AIV work during the day (I don't think you'll be able to even if you tried)... I also recently hit 100K edits, beating you by only a week or so – I guess that's the one good thing I have to say about your absence :) That's it from me. Thrilled to see you back on the wiki! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I did notice getting notified by some wikis I've never visited. Thankfully not all foreign-language wikis have automated welcome postings. I don't suppose the WMF have got off their duff, spent a few thousand from their hoard, and given us an IPv6 contrib checker where we can plug in the result from Native Foreigner's calculator? We still stuck using wildcards in the gadget? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We are :( However a rewrite of xTools is *actually* happening now, so I can make the team aware that an IPv6 contribs tool should be a priority — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Hopefully the rewrite is *actually* happening. I got a Maniphest update email just now and had to laugh. The request (multiple watchlists) was opened in March 2005 and today's big update was "Quiddity moved this task from Wishlist 51-on to Wishlist 21-50 on the Community-Wishlist-Survey board." Over ten years. Well we did get a dreadful proof of concept last year which completely ignored fairly simple requirements. Progress? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) Is that the same as the cross-wiki watchlist? I'm not aware of a multiple watchlists feature aside from mw:Gather, which was deployed to all wikis at one point (and I LOVED it), but alas that project was dropped... In the meantime you can use User:MusikAnimal/customWatchlists, a hacky-ish JavaScript version, but it works. xTools on the other hand is not supported by WMF, so it's all volunteers and their willingness and hopeful dedication toward the long-term effort. A rewrite has been slow to happen because the existing tools mostly work just fine, except the obvious lack of IPv6 support in the contribs tool. meta:Community Tech also does an annual wishlist survey that didn't yield any xTools-like stuff, but maybe 2016 can bring it to that list. Something tells me we could probably gain enough !votes :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: This one - I think that's the main one now with a thousand (slight exaggeration) duplicate requests merged into it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know. Gather offered this, along with other excellent features. Why it was dropped is beyond me. I see it made the community wishlist survey, positioned somewhere between 21 and 50, which unfortunately doesn't cut it for Community Tech to be involved. There's only 5 of us on that team (as of two weeks ago, myself included!!!). We hope to get a new developer soon, and perhaps move on to stuff other than the top 10 wishes. Also this year I hope we can better promote the survey, I personally didn't know about it until after it happened. Anyway, yes, you all can start bashing me now that I'm with the WMF :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I made some pointed remarks about the survey seeing it was the third "what features would you like?" survey done in about a year and a half. Glad to see this one got some traction. And I never had a problem with the rank-and-file developers - just some senior devs and management direction. Fair warning though - If I see some Flow-y goop with more whitespace than Dilbert's PHB's project plans coming down, your user page will be replaced by a collage of Justin Bieber photos! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Christina Grimmie

Hi I Saw you protect the page. I was wondering if you could also remove the Pending changes protection since semi-p prevents any un-autoconfirmed users from editing. Thanks. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheDwellerCamp. The semi-protection expires in two days. After that, the indefinite pending changes protection will take over again. Removing it would mean the article would lose whatever prior protection it had after the semi expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this page. When I was a reporter, the worst mistake I could make was misspelling (or worse) someone's name. Saying a living person is dead tops that. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the young lady died. Life can be very cruel. Peace. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu

Hi,

The page under Lu Jun Hong is extremely biased and there are many pages that had reported its misinformation. However, those information are mostly in Chinese and I do believe that Wikipedia wishes to have an unprejudiced representation of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.127.106.150 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns please, instead of resorting to rapid reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What if they refuse to include the edits? I have done my best to add valid references to the false claims that they had made, and in the talk page itself, there are previous users who had already "talked" about the extreme prejudice represented in the page, so much so that other users had given up editing the page. Because the information will be deleted by you know who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ccctttttt. Please see WP:DRR for various options you can use to get uninvolved editors to look at the content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN,

first of all , Do apologis for causing this mess.

whoever is trying to edit jun hong lu's page is more than welcome. They have accrused the content for being biassed misleading and simply not ture. i was very careful with editing, every single awards, what jun hong lu have been doing , any related assocations has all been cross referenced and linked compared to whoever ( does not even have the gut to sign in) simply being nosence nothing more than a rumor. Seemed like jun hong lu page is the only one get them exeicted makes me wonder why. Please protect this page from wrong editing or simply let me know whichever part of the content has been any less true! Zyw333 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zyw333. I have semi-protected the article for one week to stop the edit warring from IPs. I'll make the same suggestion to you as I made to Cccttttt above - see WP:DRR for various options you can use to get uninvolved editors to look at the content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN,

Will do and thank you for all your help and time Zyw333 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, If you do realise, his cross referencing are mainly from associated pages. Guan Yin Citta, Australian Oriental Radio all belongs to Lu Jun Hong and using them as references are not valid. Many orthodox Chinese Buddhist associations have raised doubts on Lu Jun Hong, and Guan Yin Citta is banned in China, yet he dismissed these as just rumors. Just because there is a lack of references in English does not make the entries on the controversy regarding Lu Jun Hong less valid. If you are able to prevent him from deleting my entries as soon as I put it up, I will substantiate the claims with valid comparisons with what Lu has preached and the actual entries in Buddhist scriptures that are translated into English, which was what I had formally intended to do. If he is not willing to allow the contrasting viewpoints then I will suggest its better to delete the page because there cannot be a unbiased representation if Zyw333 does not budge. In any case, shouldn't Zyw333 be the one punished because he reverted my changes without seeking any classification from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert Young

You're allowing a sound bite from an article that doesn't include the full sentence and you dismissed my edit whereby I quoted the first line in the article that calls him a hero and I was accused of vandalism. You are deliberately blocking positive changes to this wiki and I'm bemused as to why you are allowing this to happen. You are allowing someone to be called a cheat when the article doesn't say that, it says "That is, unless he's a massive fraudster" please amend it and include the opening line "Robert Young is a hero. He has an incredible, emotional backstory , and he's trying to accomplish an unprecedented feat of athleticism." UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, your sarcasm detector needs work. Please read the source again with this in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It needs no work, the article does sarcastically question it, the edit you allow on the page, states that he is a massive fraudster, not Unless he's a massive fraudster..... UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what I won't amend that line, but I'm sure I can add the opening lines as that doesn't affect anyone else's edit, right? UncleSamUSofA (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, please do not do that unless you want to be blocked for edit warring and general competence issues. Use the article's talk page to propose your changes and wait for feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just added an extra line from the very same article, I didn't notice your message until after I had added some factual reporting, my apologies UncleSamUSofA (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're allowing a partial sentence, but not the opening line of the article. I'm bemused as to why you would allow this to happen and the overall integrity of Wikipedia. I'm Britush, I don't need a sarcasm detector, I write the handbook. Whereas you appear to be American as you are following the rules like a robot. Good night and God bless, I hope for sake Mr Trump doesn't get in, that will just finish you guys off UncleSamUSofA (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

UncleSamUSofA, it does seem your detector needs adjusting. Do you really think the author wrote "Robert Young is a hero. He has an incredible, emotional backstory, and he’s trying to accomplish an unprecedented feat of athleticism." with a straight face when it's followed by "That is, unless he’s a massive fraudster who has been lying about the whole thing and secretly traveling in an RV at running pace." and eight plus more paragraphs throwing doubt on Young's claims? P.S. I'm not an American. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you for blocking this user. Do you also think his last edit to the article should be reverted? —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred, it's been (rightly) reverted by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea wiki was so biased, I emailed the author of the article you claim sarcasm was used, he wasn't being sarcastic. So I found out this week that wiki is run by people unaware of the real world works Enjoy your online lives UncleSamUSofA (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's such a shame that you NeilN are doing such a poor job of overseeing the edits to Rob Young's page. I was part of the 2 man crew with Rob on his journey across America. I was in the hospital when Rob and I saw the X ray and the doctor confirmed Rob had a broken toe and that it had been infected with cellulitis. I even have video of that if you would like to see it. And yet I cannot update this wikipedia to put that. No, some individual who has never witnessed a moment of Rob's run across America is instead allowed to say he has stopped his run because of an alleged injury. An alleged injury!!

In addition you allow someone to post up that Rob has allegations of cheating against him in the summary about the guy. In the 3 sentences that sum up the guy's whole life you think that it's reasonable for 2 of those sentences to be about allegations of cheating by a small minority who have zero proof? In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty. Isn't there a little of that sentiment in the land of Wikipedia? I reckon Jimmy Wales would think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexusDustin (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@RexusDustin: Actually Jimmy Wales takes a pretty hardline stance against undisclosed conflict-of-interest and paid editing. So much so that in order to edit Wikipedia you must disclose such interests - something that you haven't done yet. And please note that I initially left your changes to the lead alone. [1] It was only after it became clear you were trying to minimize the allegations of cheating throughout the article without disclosing your massive conflict of interest that I reverted all your edits. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean we ignore prominent allegations - see Bill Cosby for example. My advice to you is to disclose your conflict of interest, do not edit the article directly, and instead use the talk page to suggest changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Thanks for your great work concerning the Robert Young article. I just wanted to add that it is very likely that RexusDustin (Dustin Brooks, ghostwriter of Rob's book) is a sockpuppet of the blocked user UncleSamUSofA.--LondonUltraRunner (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

... I´ll go back to killing nazis in Wolfenstein: The New Order. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please delete User:Dobbyforführer. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Quixotic Potato. It's just a nonsense user page from 2007. Wikipedia probably has thousands of them, which can be blanked, but probably don't contain content requiring deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume it was made by a classmate and used to mock someone who is underage. Dobby is not a nice nickname. I have blanked it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hi, Neil. Welcome back. We missed you.

On the page 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting since the alleged perp is Afghan and since the PoPo is already mentioning Islamic terrorism, can you please add this type of edit notice to the page? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Let me ping Slakr on this. The restriction mentions ISIL, broadly construed, but I'm not sure that stretches to "all acts of suspected Islamic terrorism". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#GS.2FSCW.26ISIL_clarification_sought --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. Ouch. Now I have a headache. Somebody added a 1RR template to the Talk page but I do not think it is official because there is no Edit notice in place. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I've removed the talk page notice. It was very questionable to add it in the first place as the restriction specifically applies to ISIL, broadly construed, and not, Islamic terrorism (suspected or otherwise), broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil (with cc to Slakr). I hear you. What about the 2015 San Bernardino attack page? How do they differ? The authorities say they were both ISIL inspired. In Orlando Mateen made a 911 call proclaiming his allegiance to ISIL just prior to the attack. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Here's my thinking: Discretionary sanctions are a tool Arbcom has given us to damp down disruption in problem areas and articles. Apply them if needed and if applicable but don't use them to play gotcha with neutral editors just trying to improve the article or to scare them away from making uncontroversial edits. Now, in this article, has there been any significant ISIL-related disruption? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Neil. In a sly way, yes. There are sockpuppets posting that are preventing us from building out a neutral article. They are blowing off the good editors who want to put their shoulder to the wheel and get something useful up. They enjoy disrupting these articles to the point that it is difficult to get a constructive edit in edgewise.

Articles like this should automatically be granted 1RR status or at least extended confirm status. 1RR still allows us to remove patent vandalism. This is more insidious. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: in other attacks, the ISIL has officially claimed responsibility (through their print organs for instance). Someone just calling 911 and saying "I did it for ISIL" isn't their claim, it's just his own, and so you cannot claim the ISIL was responsible for the attack, you can only allege it. LjL (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I think I added it in response to some WP:AN3 issue. Based on my edit summary I wasn't 100% certain at the time of its inherent applicability, but I bet there was edit warring over ISIL claims, and someone wasn't explicitly warned, which caused a sort of "might as well apply the notice to the page so people know" reaction from me. I think the general consensus with things related to SCW/ISIL as being "broadly construed" is due to the inherent volatility of apparently every topic ISIL is involved in. That said, it doesn't look like that's being edit warred over (currently), though I haven't investigated. With these sorts of pages, I'd be much more tempted to avoid using the broad "1RR for everything" notice unless things devolved. Besides, there's a reasonable shot that there's going to be a veritable buffet of WP:ACDS options the page could end up being covered by (e.g., WP:ARBBLP, WP:ARBAP, WP:ARBGC) depending on whether any of them become (or have become) sources of contention. I, personally, would be more comfortable with applying, "1RR on things related to (ds topic) until (expiration)," as it otherwise has high visibility and is being rapidly edited in other areas. I've done that with temporarily-political things (like the mountain renaming thing), for example, when people started edit warring over it. --slakr^\ talk / 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations for over 100000 edits

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU , thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by banned sockmaster

Hi,

Can you please watch Gutian people and Gutian language? The articles were vandalised by banned sockmaster Escoperloit (talk · contribs) again. He use both ip and his new sock there. Tommy91br (talk · contribs) and the ip 85.252.66.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) belong the same sockmaster.The articles were main targets of this sockmaster (See banned Persiskbruker (talk · contribs), Elham1a (talk · contribs), Solhjoo (talk · contribs) and his other socks). Their page creation style (using only one character), editing style (disruptive editings via major content deletions regarding particular ethnicity), targeted articles...All the same. Regards, 46.221.201.188 (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

P.s.: Maybe @JamesBWatson:, @Materialscientist: and @Wario-Man: may also comment too. 46.221.201.188 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I found a good deal more evidence, in addition to the points mentioned by the IP editor here, and there is no doubt whatever that this is the same sockmaster as before. I have blocked the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and the sockpuppet IP address for a month, and I have semi-protected the articles for a year, as the abuse has continued over a long period. In fact, I regard that as a fairly short protection, since similar editing from the same point of view, with similar use of both sockpuppet accounts and IP editing, has gone on to my knowledge at least since June 2013. (The editing back then may have been from a different sockmaster, judging from the geolocation of IP addresses used, but it makes no difference: if the same kind of disruptive edit-warring and sockpuppetry persists year after year, protection has to be used, whether it is one sockmaster or more than one.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. @JamesBWatson:. Kind regards, 46.221.201.188 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your user page

Hello. I wanted to let you know that on May 28 User:Citrus Party committed page-move vandalism on your user page and as a result the page lost the indefinite semi-protection. —MRD2014 T C 12:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Appreciate the heads up! Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yowza N. Where was this excitement while you were gone? I hope you are well and welcome back. It is good to wee your name on my watchlist again! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey MarnetteD. Yes, I never thought to check my user page history until MRD2014 pointed it out. Shake of the head, re-apply protection, and move (ahem) on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Royale Kim Jong Un

Just to let you know this user is a sockpuppet of User:Supreme Genghis Khan (see his edit summaries) TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

President of Brazil

Howdy. I would've much rather that the other fellow go to the talkpage of that article & get a consensus for the changes he wants to make. But so far (6 rvt in 1-2 hrs) he's not willing to listen to anyone. His tampering of my posts at WP:AN was getting annoying as well. Due to his (self-professed) poor grasp on the english language, we might have a competency issue here. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an Rfc at the article-in-queston. PS- Perhaps a 1-month protection on that article will be required, in the meantime. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, the article is on my watchlist. If disruption resumes, a longer protection period is likely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, NeilN. I've also noticed looking at his contributions, that the individual has focused entirely on this topic, for several weeks now. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Malan Breton page protection

Hi, I hope you are well, I'm not a wiki editor so I'm sorry for my html errors, but I noticed as soon as a page protection was lifted for Malan Breton the same unknown IP address jumped back onto the page to add anonymous and inaccurate information. This same IP address was part of the warring that had the page protected in the first place. Is there any help you can give? I'm thankful for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 66. Protection expired on June 6th. On June 13th an IP added this. While unsourced, it is consistent with Project Runway (season 3). What's the issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi thank you, I guess if you look in the notes you'll see this anonymous IP address erased all documented biographical information on paragraph one of this topic at one point before the page was protected. And also wrote the word cunt in the charity section. Please excuse the profanity.

If the IP has changed its behavior I can't exactly protect the article because of valid edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi:) thank you, I just saw that a whole chunk of sourced biographical information was removed from this page, check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malan_Breton&diff=721661994&oldid=721661829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in May, before the protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please look at the dates, that was a day before the protection and warring began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.120 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what caused the protection. Timeline:

1. Disruption in May
2. Protection in May, expired on June 6th
3. One valid edit on June 13th

Not sure what you expect here. Protection doesn't last indefinitely and there's no valid reason to re-protect because of that one edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

I was following the Odysseus vandalising by that IP, even reverting one time. I was just about ready to throw them into AIV, when I saw that you had already blocked them! I'd just like to thank you for working tirelessly on keeping this amazing thing afloat. --Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marksomnian: Thank you. Just fortuitous timing as I was glancing at the top of my watchlist and saw what was going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User: RobinColclough

Hi NeilN. You indefinitely blocked User talk:RobinColclough back in October 2015. This edit by an IP seems to be the same editor per WP:DUCK trying to add the previously removed content about Colclough to OWN TV. So far, the IP has made only a single edit so not sure if an SPI, etc. is needed. Anyway, please advise whether something needs to be done or this should just be ignored for now. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for spotting this. I will keep an eye on the article and act if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems I wasn't the only one who noticed based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobinColclough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wannabe vandal-fighter with CIR issues

Neil, when you have a moment, could you take a look at this? I'm trying to make a mental connection to (I think) a globally-blocked editor who (I think, based purely on behavioral evidence) is now editing as an IPv6, and hoping your memory is better than mine as to who the blocked editor is. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - This is probably irritating me more than it should mainly because the blocked editor's username escapes my memory; probably not a priority but would give me some relief if you recognize the behavior as I did. General Ization ^Talk 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: I'm looking at this (need to have " Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches" gadget on) to see if I can spot anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocked editor I'm thinking of was a registered editor, not (obviously) an IPv6. General Ization ^Talk 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes, sometimes you get lucky and find an admin has blocked an IP in the range and identified the sockmaster. Haven't found anything. Sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely seeing the exact same behavior on the part of some other members of that range, but nothing that helps to make a connection. Thanks for your help. General Ization ^Talk 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A third party needed

Hello,

For a while I have been having a content dispute with another editor on Aristo. To avoid repetition, I made this complaint at ANI sometime ago here. The article was protected, but afterwards, the editor started once again. Here is an extensive and cyclical discussion at the talkpage that is not heading anywhere. My major problem with this editor is he/she is unwilling to compromise. They want the entire definition out of the page and that is final. They have even proceeded to remove other valid entries on the dab page, still using the reason "undocumented". I will appreciate if you can look into the dispute and help in resolving it. I think I'd most probably be comfortable with a rational/guideline based decision of any fair administrator. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. I'm out of town until Tuesday and have limited Internet access. If you wish, I'll have a look at what is happening then. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the reply! Atlast someone who is willing to help. Please do look at the page when you're back. Thanks again.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man

Hi, Neil. I went to Parsley Man's talk page to invite them to edit an article I have launched in my user space for now and found out they have been blocked. Maybe this article will be a good way for them to ease back into being a collaborative Wikimedian. I hope they agree to help as they are a good editor and they know a lot about this niche. PM has some quirky habits and maybe we all can help keep them between the rails and they can learn to keep themselves between the rails better. Their input will be invaluable to me and it will further the project. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

DanDud88 sock

Neil, a while back you indef. blocked User:DanDud88 for copyright violations. Well, he's back, now socking with the username User:DanDud17. User:MelbourneStar opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanDud88, but checkuser was refused, and we could turn old and grey waiting for someone to get through the line and act on the behavior evidence (he's admitted the two accounts are both his), so I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you'd like to take a look at the case and perhaps give him a sock-block. Cluelessness has not improved. --Drmargi (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmargi, sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. No less than the little toe-rag deserves! Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with the vandalism on my page so quickly. I don't work on Wiki all that often, but decided to update my user page. When the page was immediately attacked, I was trying to figure who did that and why, but you'd already fixed the problem. Thanks again. Rhondamerrick (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rhondamerrick. It's actually HighInBC who should get this barnstar. They fixed the vandalism, I just nailed the vandal's coffin shut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've shared a star with you and HighInBC. That nail was important as it kept the lid firmly closed. Hopefully, that person won't open a new account straightaway just to keep causing trouble. Rhondamerrick (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rhondamerrick, already taken care of :-) [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why I edited Jesus(as) in Islam

First of all in Islam jesus(AS) is NOT THE son of God so stuff like "You are my son and my beloved......" under Jesus(as) tracing the characters of light should not be there secondly casting out demons is a miracle that I have not read in the Quran and it appears to be from a christian source reference 12 and so i removed that also ahmedi's are non-muslims because they don't believe that Prophet Muhammad (saw) is the last prophet and so their view should be on a different page there is also some confusing text under the heading of theology and a picture showing a river where Jesus was said to be baptized which has no source nor is it confirmed on the page whether or not such a concept exsists in Islam so if it does not then please remove the pic. The heading of preaching also gives no sources and the text under the heading of theology gives a confusing view using the old testament to make a distinction also surah al baqrah verse 87 says: "And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed." i dont think it says that he was filled with the holy spirit but supported by it so if you are right about him being filled with it then please give another reference form the Quran or another reliable source. Also under the heading of preaching there is information with no source given which appears to be biblical information and so it is not fit to be there as of yet please get it verified also there is a heading foreknowledge i don't understand that one well so if you can fix all of this soon i will be gratefull for now i am reverting it please don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleoldmanandball (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Littleoldmanandball, I see a lot of personal opinion in your post and no reference to sources. Please read WP:NOR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving messages at the top of the page? Insisting that the article says that Jesus is the son of God when it very clearly says that Islam rejects that claim? Looks like User:Obaidullah_ak figured out how to turn off capslock. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, thanks for the heads up. I looked into the socking and was about to block but you beat me to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And remarkably oblivious to instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting reported and auto-messaged warnings by a user, I'm not sure how to report them for abuse

EvergreenFir is pushing a pro-racism agenda on the "White pride" page. This is the first time I'm ever seeing a page under control of such people, and I am unsure of how to handle it. It seems natural that "white power" people would do this to the "white pride" page, but he's "trusted" and therefore able to bypass the lock.

I reverted their changes, then was told to talk to them instead. Then I was told not to talk to them, probably because I didn't handle myself well (didn't expect such from wikipedia) but I don't know where to go next.

Could you look into it? My edit was literally copypasted from another page on a similar topic, it is fully factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike13815 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... that's enough of the person attacks. Though they do add to my collection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike13815: You need to go to Talk:White pride, propose your changes (minus the insults), and wait for discussion. After your unacceptable post on EvergreenFir's talk page I had a look at the article and the reverts. You seem to deeply misunderstand EvergreenFir's position. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of insults

Hi, NeilN! Thank you for your interest and intervention on Vrahomarinaner's "contributions", which was immediate, fair and justified in my opinion. But allow me to say that there is one more thing to be done. As I Greek, I find it very frustrating and demeaning when a compatriot expresses himself in the lowest level while contributing in en:WP and his insults could be read by anyone, that is when they are allowed to serve their ill cause. Needless to mention that edit summaries like the ones pointed out here, are removed from gr:WP within a minute. Few English readers are able to understand them (although word m@l@k@s is worldwide known any more), but I think removal should take place for the sake of all – as well as WP itself. Happy to write to you and many thanks once again. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης, okay, I think I've removed all the offensive edit summaries. Let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Comments in Sro23's talk page were quickly deleted by him and they are almost invisible any more. You have removed all edit summaries, so let's forget the incident . --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sock-fest

Sir, I RVed the sock-edit at Balochistan conflict. No consensus / comment at the concerned talk page section, nor to your or my comment either.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 05:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Poverty

Hi, Thank you for guiding. So I gather that the leadtrust.net link was inappropriate as per wiki policy. Let's remove it and put back the rest if nothing else was inappropriate. If some other thing was also inappropriate kindly tell me I will gladly remove it.

Kindly guide me how to do it. As I typed it with much pain...

Regards

RezviMasood — Preceding unsigned comment added by RezviMasood (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi RezviMasood. Using your own self-published book as a source is inappropriate. If you wish to edit and remove certain text you added you can click here and here. Please do not use your book as a reference or add it to "Further reading". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How to edit from the links you provided?

Thanks for providing the links. Kindly guide me on How to edit, putting back some of it while deleting the rest as you pointed outRezviMasood (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)?

RezviMasood, just click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, search for the content sourced to your book, remove it, and click the Save button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland Cavaliers Championship Parade

Thank you so much for fixing this, both the number of the crowd and the source. I actually had trouble finding a good source and did not want the fraudulent post to stand. I'm curious how you saw my note (or, if you did, I guess).Evanvalken (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Evanvalken. Registered editors like ourselves have access to watchlists. You can access yours by clicking the "watchlist" link at the top of your screen. I had edited List of largest peaceful gatherings in history before so it was on my watchlist. I saw you posted something on the talk page when I was looking at my watchlist and then went to the talk page to see what it was. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User edit waring, removing content and personal attacks

User:Danratedrko user has been blocked several times in the past for the same behavior. He has been warned Numerous times on his talk page by myself and others in the past month. User continues to remove content he doesn't like with no real reason to remove, personally attacks users who change or revert his removals, and is now edit Waring with me. Below are all the edits he has done to today which you can see in the comments section he should be blocked again. Clearly this user is not here to work with others and has not learned from his previous blocks. Judging from his contribution history he has been attacking users all aver the place for months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=726853260&oldid=726804531

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=726853482&oldid=726853260

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=726853650&oldid=726853482

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=726854164&oldid=726854143

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=726854516&oldid=726854357

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danratedrko

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Noted,Thank you sir Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Gran Turismo LA

That article was speedied, and therefore not eligible for G4. Adam9007 (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Incorrect. The speedy was a result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Turismo LA Full Car List (2016). Note that WP:SNOW was also invoked by the closing admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Nobody there said speedy per G3. The discussion only raised suspicions of a hoax. If a reposted speedy-deleted article does not address why it was speedied under a certain criterion, then the same criterion applies again. As I understand it, and I've seen others say this too, G4 only applies if the AfD runs its full course and is deleted for non-CSD reasons (i.e. consensus-deleted). It is meant so that there is no need for a second consensus to delete something that there is already a consensus to delete. Shall I take this to WT:CSD for clarification? Adam9007 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: If you have nothing better to do... Or you might want to think about what people have said to you in the past on your talk page and read WP:NOTBURO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And who exactly, has said I'm being purely bureaucratic? Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: There's enough people which take issue with your sometimes overly strict interpretation of policies and guidelines. Even one of your supporters, MelanieN, advised you to listen more. In this case, you are being overly bureaucratic. The outcome isn't going to change. For example, if a new editor takes an article to AFD and five editors say speedy delete, and the admin SNOWs it as a speedy delete, any re-created article is going to be G4'd or A7'd or whatever. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

But surely poor CSDing should be discouraged? I always thought getting it spot on mattered? Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I feel my G4 was perfectly valid. I don't understand what your end game is here. Do you really want the article restored and the AFD overturned? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. If it's a G3, and it's a G3. I don't see how it was a G4 though. Only yesterday I questioned an A7 by Acroterion, which to me was an obvious G3 (it was originally tagged A11, though I can understand how non-British people might have given it the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was merely made up if it wasn't for certain statements). Adam9007 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I would observe that your time and ours would be better and more profitably spent writing and managing the encyclopedia than in debating into which pigeonhole a deleted article should go. There are almost always multiple options, and sometimes I choose a less obvious rationale as a strategy. Other times I'm mistaken, but it really doesn't matter most of the time. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: "I don't see how it was a G4 though." I don't think I can state my position any more clearly. The phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If there's a way I know is right, and a way I think is also right, I tend to do things the way I know is right. But that's just me. Only in this case I'm not sure if the other way was right. Adam9007 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4_clarification --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Neil, and thanks for the ping. Adam, you really need to take a step back here. Neil referred to me above as one of your supporters, and that is accurate; I feel friendly toward you, and I sometimes step in on your talk page to defend you against people who disagree with your interpretation of speedy deletion criteria. I have also tried to mentor you on that subject, especially when you first came here. But it's also true that I say so when I think you are wrong - when you are taking CSD criteria far too literally, or refusing to apply common sense. This is certainly one of those times. As Neil asked above, what is your point here? The article should have been speedy deleted; it WAS speedy deleted; what are you trying to accomplish by saying the wrong criterion was used?
Let's take a look at the history of this article and its author, and see if it is worth spending even a moment debating the fine points of why it doesn't belong here. The article was created on June 23 by DisneylandCA; after prod was removed, you AfD'ed it; thank you, that was the right thing to do. You also tagged it as a possible hoax. Before the end of that same day, June 23, six people had agreed at the AfD that it should be removed, and it was deleted. The deleting admin cited both speedy (G3) and snow (which IS a result of consensus at the AfD; it doesn't have to run for 7 days if the consensus is that obvious). The username DisneylandCA was also blocked. Two days later, on June 25, a "new" user called GranTurismoLA recreated the article; it was tagged as G4 by AdrianGamer and deleted by Neil. Neil also blocked GranTurismoLA as an obvious sock. Let me ask you: what in the world is wrong with any of this? We have a troll who keeps recreating an inappropriate page. The troll, and the page, were dealt with promptly. Wikipedia's defenses against this kind of nonsense worked, and they will again when the troll takes a new name and tries again. Whether we cite G4, or G3, or A7, or any of several other applicable criteria isn't important; any one of them is enough. And spending lots of editor and administrator time after the fact, arguing about which criterion should have been applied, is counterproductive and ultimately pointless. I do believe you are a valuable contributor here and you do a lot of good work. I understand the personal issues that lead you to take written criteria very literally and I make allowance for them. But I absolutely can't see the point of arguing (in TWO different places) that an article which was snow-closed at AfD and then recreated isn't eligible for G4. In the time that multiple people (including you and Neil and others at the discussion you started) have spend discussing this, we all could have been doing positive work for the encyclopedia instead. Acroterion makes the same point above. Try to keep a sense of proportion in these things. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Neil, sorry to take up so much room on your talk page; I was going to say all this on Adam's talk page but then decided it was better to keep the discussion in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. Incidentally, if the above situation occurs again I will almost always opt for a G4 as I think it reflects a stronger community consensus (a discussion) to speedy delete the article as opposed to the judgment of two people (tagger and admin). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. For clarity and to avoid misunderstanding, we should refer to that kind of case as a snow deletion rather than a speedy deletion. A snow deletion is the result of overwhelming consensus at an AfD. A speedy deletion is done via one of the CSD criteria. Same result, different process. And as you say, the snow process is much stronger because it reflect consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Okay, I get it, snow equals consensus, but if it hadn't been snowed (i.e. only speedied), it would not have been a valid G4? The point to this is if the "wrong" speedy criteria keeps getting applied, the criteria begin to lose their meaning. Take the article Acroterion deleted. It was originally tagged A11, I changed it to G3, but it was ultimately deleted A7. That kind of implies that I and the original tagger were both wrong, although when I asked him about it, he said G3 was also correct. To me, or indeed probably any British person, it was an obvious G3. I saw another silly article the other day about a supposed battle on the River Thames between In and Out supporters of the EU referendum, and Nigel Farage was an admiral or something. It was tagged A11, but it was obviously a G3 hoax. It was deleted as such, but it's important for people to know the difference between WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX. The fact that Wikipedia's defences would have worked either way, although true, isn't particularly relevant. As an aside, If I hope to become an admin some day, people will undoubtedly look at my CSD log. For argument's sake, if they see my G3 taggings end up being deleted A7 or whatever else, they will naturally assume my judgement was wrong, even if it turns out it was correct, and the deleting admin merely took a different path. It could also increase confusion over what speedy criteria apply when, which will ultimately result in hoo-ha like this. Surely the point of there being separate criteria is that is does matter which is used? Otherwise we may as well have just one criterion that covers all the circumstances in the current set of criteria. I understand there will be many borderline cases and grey areas when it will be difficult to judge exactly which criterion fits best (I've seen many borderline cases between A11 and G3, G3 and G10, A7 and G3, A7 and G10, G1 and G3, etc) but in other cases, isn't it important to be sure we're getting it right? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, no one is going to look at your CSD log and look for discrepancies unless 1) Your speedies get declined outright or 2) You're getting the criteria obviously wrong and there are posts on your talk page discussing this. Again, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you cannot accept this, you'll have a hard time convincing people that you know when to drop the stick. People get exasperated when mounds of text are devoted to something that does not matter in the end. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what Neil said. It's actually quite common for there to be more than one valid reason to speedy-delete an article. Battling over which one should have been used is not only counterproductive - it is borderline disruptive. As people have been telling you since the day you got here: learn to listen to others, and learn to accept that there isn't just One Correct Way to do things and everything else is wrong. For an administrator, it's far more important that they be able to listen to others, rather than that they dot every i and cross every t correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. I've changed my blocking decisions, changed my protection decisions, re-reverted my reverts, etc., based on input from others because these things matter. In most cases, my original decision was justified but they were "more" right and their input led to an improved outcome. However if the outcome is correct, sometimes we need to accept that it was achieved in a different way from what we'd have done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Another set of eyes needed over the weekend

I see you're at your keyboard, NeilN... A couple of articles on my watchlist are problematic right now, and because of real-life harrowing deadline responsibilities, coupled with the fact that neither of the users are people with respect to whom I currently have the emotional/intestinal fortitude to get into confrontations, I am hoping you (or some friendly talk-page stalker of yours) can keep an eye on them.

• Matt Krause, a Texas politician whose article has been repeatedly not-quite-"vandalized" by an IP of other political views: [3]. I reverted the IP a couple of times earlier in the week and thought the person had gone away, but there was a resurgence this morning. This is not a week in my life when I can handle attacks by a person with a grudge against some Texas politician (which begrudged person is undoubtedly going to assume I am said politician's sympathizer for not letting the inappropriate language stay in a Wikipedia article). I appreciate any help anyone can provide with this situation.

• Margarita Levieva, some starlet whose article must just have come off page protection from the last salvo of attacks by a fan contingent seeking to introduce unreferenced information that she broke up with some actor: [4]. I left a templated message for the principal offender this morning, an autoconfirmed SPA apparently solely devoted to edit-warring this unsourced information back into the article; the editor has not changed tactics at all since before the page was under protection when I told her the information had to be supported by a reference. Again, this week I can't handle pestering talk-page messages by young obsessed fans (of somebody, I'm not clear on whom).

I appreciate any help and, to the extent I non-adminly can, hope I can return the favor sometime. After a fairly active six months here, I have to say that in my view the biggest obstacle to editor retention is abusive and time-consuming cluelessness by inexperienced editors who don't understand that volunteers here do take this seriously but are real human beings. Thank you so much in advance. Onward and upward! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

<tps> I've watchlisted them too. The Krause IP will be blocked if they do that again. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Watchlisted both (BTW, Margarita Levieva has never been protected)). Thank you for your help and vigilance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged to both of you! (I guess I hallucinated the M. Levieva page protection, or maybe it was the actor's page that got protected a month or so ago... I'm a bit sleep-deprived at the moment, though!) I might not be as concerned if the articles were, say, Calzone and Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge, but with BLPs I do want to "golden-rule" it if I can (and of course I probably would be that concerned anyway). Take care, folks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi NielN,

The use of any name in lie of "Persian Gulf" is fake an illegal and is not recognized by UN. The only name that is recognized by UN in "Persian Gulf". Refer to the follwing links: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp61.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/persian_gulf.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/qatar.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kuwait.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/westasia.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/iran.pdf

I expect Wikipedia to use legal and correct names. Please use the correct name of "Persian Gulf" in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_Arabian_Gulf_League and protect the page after the amendment.

Regards

Amir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.36.212.11 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amir. I will be declining your request. First, you are editing against consensus. Second, you are ignoring what you were told here. Please read that carefully and drop the stick. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for page semi-protection

Hi, I am writing to request your attention regarding Lu Jun Hong's wikipedia page. This page is currently under discussion (articles of deletion). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jun_Hong_Lu_(2nd_nomination). However, there are some editing changes (vandalism) on Lu Jun Hong's page using unreliable sources in order to discredit Jun Hong Lu 's reputation despite how many awards he has been honoured.Although hyperlinks the editor provides contains gov.(government website), a mandarin user from China will understand that the sources is actually a individual post (not reliable) on government websites, not an articles published from the government organisation itself. It means that anyone can actually publish a post on the china government website. The sources given by the user are therefore not reliable, rather misleading (to someone who do not understand mandarin language). Some of the sources do not even mention Lu Jun Hong. I'm sincerely hoping you could assist on this matter (request for semi-protection).Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.0.222 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 82. The most recent disruption by IPs was on June 11th so there's no recent disruptive activity that would justify semi-protection. Sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/108.34.211.123

He/she involved unsourced genres multiple times without warning as did it on Hotel California (though I reverted it). Can you block him/her? 115.164.60.171 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 115. Usually I prefer these kinds of reports go to WP:AIV where there are admins more likely to block genre warriors but since they were changing genres and removing sources I've blocked them for three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

excusion Vrahomarinaner

My exclusion is unfair.The sources say that the super cup in Greece launched in 1980,since its introduction the professional football.Then the union sports journalists,ordered the establishment of the institution ,the model of the european super cup,which was launched in 1972 idea after Dutch jurnalist.

The races before 1980,it was simply friendly and had revenue character.Please correct entry according to the sources,and reduce my exclusion.--77.49.43.81 (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Vrahomarinaner, I don't think you understand. It was your own actions that turned a three day block into an indefinite one and your subsequent behavior only ensures any edit of yours will be reverted and your current IP blocked. My advice to you is to stay off Wikipedia for six months and then request an unblock from your original account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

GCWAC questions

I wanted to create a info page about the world affairs council in cincinnati. Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongma09 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kongma09. What independent third party sources are you going to use to show this organization meets our notability standards? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose articles about GCWAC from other websites. It is a non-profit organization that helps promote global awareness. There are many World Affair Council wiki pages that take place in many other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongma09 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Kongma09, if you list specific sources here I can tell you fairly quickly if they're acceptable. Otherwise, I recommend using the article wizard to create a draft of your article and get feedback on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nela Navarro

Just a quick thanks for dealing with the copyvio issues at Nela Navarro - just to say am more than happy for you to remove the speedy tag if you feel the article's been cleared up from a copyright POV - though of course there's still the notability/referencing issues to resolve also. And welcome back! I'm a bit of a gnome so I don't think we've interacted much previously, but your absence was noticed! Mike1901 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they've just reverted back to the infringing version - I think a block is in order unfortunately - hopefully they'll see the messages then - not convinced they're looking at their Talk currently. Mike1901 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike1901 One more revert will be earning her an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike1901, blocked, unfortunately. Hopefully they'll be happy with our rewritten version. Still could use more non-Rutgers sources, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User Continues to remove AFD Template

User:Ansuman Pattnaik Continues to remove the AFD template from Jacob Novak (wrestler) They have been warned several times on their talk page by other users. they have removed the warning stating they don't care and continue to remove the AFD template. Clearly this user is not heeding the warnings that have been given to them. As you can see in the history of their own page and the Jacob Novak page history they aren't getting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ansuman_Pattnaik&diff=727242561&oldid=727242171

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Novak_(wrestler)&curid=50879447&action=history

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", they have stated they don't care but stopped after the final warning. Let's see if they stay stopped. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for following up with this, hopefully they heed the previous warnings they deleted and the one I issued today. Thank you again for watching this Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

diffs

I give up.

I will search for diffs if you will block. If you are wanting me to waste time and find diffs and nothing done, I will not fall into WV and Softlavender's trick.

See, this is why terrorists win. I will not make good edits for Wikipedia because those people cause so much trouble. It just saps other's energy and causes people to stop editing. I am done editing today. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Whiskeymouth, that's not how it works. If you accuse editors of "causing trouble" you need to provide diffs to show other editors what you're referring to. Continually making unsubstantiated accusations may earn you a block for personal attacks. You're on the edge right now as it is with your last edit to Floquenbeam's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alina_Tugend

Very obscure article. They have no interest in it except to harass me. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender and Winkelvi: How did you come by this AFD? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Easy, they followed me. Of the million articles on WP, it is no coincidence that two editors would stumble on the same article on the same day, almost the same time and oppose me. Hell, I no longer care about that article....expand it, declare it a featured article, delete it. See how disruptive users are so successful? Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Neil for taking a little interest in this. Goodbye. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going down the list of AfDs from today's dates. It's something I do periodically. The Tugend AfD wasn't the only one I commented on today. I would have commented on more (and originally intended to go down the entire list commenting on each) but was interrupted by something that occurred IRL, taking me away from AfD and editing. To be completely honest, I didn't even notice WM was involved in it until this ping and reading his comments here. It's not my habit to look at who brought an AfD or who comments at them. It's the articles I'm looking into, not the editors commenting there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article, uses same phrase as WV does above... http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303802904579332751950927282 Wall Street Journal (Title: Why Verbal Tee-Ups Like 'To Be Honest' Often Signal Insincerity)Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Whiskeymouth, see this equally interesting article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, please do not threaten me. I am the victim here. Are you saying that Wikipedia is better off if there is harassment and unpleasantness? No, it is not. I thought you could help since you volunteered to Flo's user page. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Whiskeymouth: All right, let me state is plainly. Any more edits like these [5], [6], [7] and I will block you. I'm waiting for Softlavender to comment here and then we can see how to move forward. Meanwhile, if you cannot resist throwing barbs at these editors, I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia and go do something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not very plausible or credible. During the entire month of June, he did no AFD. During the entire month of May, he did no AFD except to one about the famous gorilla who was shot, Harambe. During the entire month of April, he did not frequent AFD. Then the first AFD he does, he lasers into this one and do a few more for show. Not very credible an explanation. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

follow up

You wrote that you are awaiting Softlavender's response here. Softlavender refused to comment on her misconduct despite your request. She did not deny the stalking accusation. She did not deny that she and WV selectively tag team on that and other articles and obscure AFDs. The worse is that she and WV didn't even agree to try to be a more careful Wikipedian unlike when I complied with you and stopped commenting. Please help me and Wikipedia by trying to get them to stop being disruptive by a block. Thank you for your consideration of this exasperating matter.Whiskeymouth (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Findings and proposal

@Whiskeymouth, Winkelvi, and Softlavender: All of you know this is not WP:ANI so what follows is just my opinion and suggestions. Whiskeymouth presented two complaints. 1) Winkelvi and Softlavender were following them around. 2) They were "causing trouble". For 1), given your AFD participation histories Winkelvi and Softlavender, it defies belief that both of you would suddenly happen upon Whiskeymouth's AFD nomination at random. For 2), Whiskeymouth has presented no diffs that the two editors are causing trouble. I looked at the AFD and both editors' comments stick to the topic with no extraneous commentary.

Whiskeymouth, it seems like you are your own worst enemy. Using overblown rhetoric like "That is why terrorists and criminals win" and constantly calling for blocks while making edits like these [8], [9], [10] indicates battleground behavior, something that you've been warned and blocked for before. If you just stick to the facts and avoid unnecessary jibes you'll find you'll get a much more sympathetic hearing of your complaints.

There's a small set of articles all of you are working on. Outside these articles, I strongly urge you to avoid each other as much as possible, perhaps agreeing to a voluntary interaction ban. On those small set of articles, you will need to be extra careful to comment on content, not the contributor. Your other option is to take this to WP:ANI and see what the community thinks but I don't believe their response would be too different from mine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said already, I had no knowledge WM was involved at one of the AfDs I commented and participated in. That was just an unfortunate coincidence. I can tell you definitively that SL and I are not in collusion with each other and I certainly have no kind of agenda that involves WM. Neither am I seeking them out for any reason. I, however, see no logic in why either SL or I should avoid articles we have edited in the past or have had on our watchlists for months/years where WM might now be editing or commenting at the associated talk page. If WM (a relatively new user) wants to avoid either of us at such articles, that seems more reasonable than asking an editor who has put in significant time at articles to suddenly abandon them because one editor has a personal, unfounded belief they are being stalked. I have no desire to encounter WM or attempt to contact them, so a voluntary iban is fine with me under the conditions I noted regarding who has been at which articles for the longest amount of time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN for looking into this. I completely agree with your statement that " Winkelvi and Softlavender, it defies belief that both of you would suddenly happen upon Whiskeymouth's AFD nomination at random. ". I proposed that there be a required interaction ban in that any article that any one of us edits, the other is prohibited from editing. This ban becomes effective July 1, 2016 in the editor's time zone (or 12:00 UTC to cover all time zones) and will last until December 31, 2016 23:59. The only exception would be articles that were edited before the ban. If there is bad behavior, such as reverting edits on articles not included in the ban, then the reverting editor would have that article added to their ban. The proposed penalty is a 1 month block for the each offense up to a maximum of 6 months.

Plain and simple, stay away from each other from July 1 to December 31, 2016 except articles already edited. However, if an editor reverts the other editor's work in the excepted articles, they can no longer edit that article.

It seems that we agree. The main exception is that I call for a July 1 to December 31 time period as a trial period while WV makes no mention of it. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Neiln.

Would you reply and agree to enforce this above agreement? It is agreed upon. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender has not replied or agreed yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender is not very cooperative and has replied by writing no comment. This is very unhelpful. However, progress can be made if you agree to oversee Winkelvi (WV) and me. Thank you in advance for helping this way. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is very curious: [11]. An AfD where WM had never been previously, but where I have commented. I did revert back to open the AfD again as it is only four days old and consensus (if you go by votes only) was 5:4 for delete, not keep, as claimed in WM's premature close. Perhaps, on further consideration, I should not have reverted, considering the informal agreement above? I'm a bit unclear on how it would work since I had already been at the AfD and WM had not. I do know, however, that my revert would have happened regardless of who had done it so improperly and without an accurate result announced. WM also removed the deletion discussion template at the article in question and changed the deletion discussion notice on the talk page to reflect his 'keep' closing. That I did leave alone because I have not previously edited the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

To WV: I saw in the Death of Prince AFD that non-admins can close AFD and that it CANNOT be reopen as you did. I know because I tried and found that it is not permitted but DRV is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskeymouth (talk • contribs)

Whiskeymouth, there's absolutely no way you should have closed that AFD. Even disregarding the fact that both Winkelvi and Softlavender have commented there, your close is clearly against WP:NAC. Winkelvi's revert was out of process and but your close was plainly disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, after I left the previous comments here, this happened at the AfD. It needs to be reverted back, but I won't do it and take the bait. The AfD is far from complete and the result WM has declared there is inaccurate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi is edit warring

Winkelvi is stepping up battleground behavior by submitting a checkuser report. This is done to try to get me blocked.

On the other hand, Winkelvi and Softlavender are known meatpuppets. Just look at their votes at AFD of Murder of Tim Bosma and also Alina Tugend. The Murder of Tim Bosma, their votes are within minutes of each other.

Winkelvi has violated the truce that he and I and you had. The checkuser is merely an attack. He did a checkuser before and it turned out that I was innocent.

Please help stop this disruptive behavior. Note that I have learned and have not compared him to ______ or ______ but merely state the fats. Thank you NeilN. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Whiskeymouth, I explicitly told Winkelvi that opening a SPI would be permissible if he had believable evidence. Looking at the SPI, it seems that burden has been met. About violating the "truce": First, I have not formalized the interaction ban - I'm still thinking about some of the details. Second, I would not talk about violating truces after your improper AFD close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have committed 3RR.............

I believe I have committed 3RR on the article for List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions. The source WWE.com has it listed as WWE World Heavywieght Championship, IP users keep changing it to WWE Champion. I have changed it several times with the reasoning of no source showing the change and listed the source again http://www.wwe.com/superstars showing what WWE has the name listed as,I placed it also on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be changed and that the source how the source has it listed. But in doing all of this I believe I have violated 3RR as I wasn't paying attention. If i must be blocked/banned for 24hrs then I accept my punishment and will own up to my mistake as I should have been paying closer attention. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", I don't like to see featured articles being destabilized so I've reverted the article to a stable version and fully protected it for three days so the dispute can be worked out. In the future, if you realize you've broken 3RR, just re-revert your last revert and you should be okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and locking it down for a few days, I am pretty sure I was past 3 maybe 5 reverts as I couldn't keep up with all the IP changes and then a new created user started changing it too and I lost count/track of what I was doing. There were so many changes that were false that have been done over the last few days IE: Names of who was Champion and at which time, etc. and as I was trying to fix all of those and I would get an edit conflict because they were changing the name again and I got flustered and forgot where I was at editing because I couldn't keep up. If I deserve a block then so be it, I will not fight it, if not I will be more observant in the future. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're fine, you're not going to get blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that, can you also lock down WWE World Heavyweight Championship for a few days as well, just fixed it, they are starting to hit that one now and I see where its going to go with people changing it back and forth. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not that bad yet. If it gets worse, put in a request at WP:RFPP. I've warned one user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com made the change today,its now WWE Championship officially effective today. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request headed your way

You are about to receive an email. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand

Vince McMahon recognized as Mr. McMahon in WWE World Title history.--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shinkazamaturi. Then please use the article's talk page to state your case and wait for feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A Consensus was done on the talk page as suggested and it was voted 4 to 1 in favor of Vince McMahon not Mr. McMahon,Shinkazamaturi refuses to accept the consensus and continues to change the article to show Mr. Mcmahon. How do we proceed from here? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", I saw that on my watchlist. Basically Shinkazamaturi can expect a block if he reverts again. Shinkazamaturi, look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir hopefully he listens Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't watch wwe.com?. Vince McMahon is listed as Mr. McMahon.--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Our articles use the titles the subject are commonly known by. That means in the real world, not on wwe.com broadcasts. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

GMA Network Inc.

Hi Nein, GMA Network real company name is GMA Network Inc. I don't know why your blocking me for editing. some editor moved the name to GMA Network (Company) supposed to be GMA Network Inc. to its original name. I hope you understand. I tried to changed the company name to it's original name to GMA Network Inc. and not to GMA Network (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaro (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done This editor has been blocked for edit warring; they don't seem to understand that articles exist separately on the network and the parent company thereof. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation

Just not looked in 1966. Understandable ?--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου, not really. Please actually 'look at the version you reverted. [12] It had your dates and used proper templates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your "Old Age" edit

Why the hell did you delete it? You're an ignorant fool. Undo your misguided behavior. Disposing of my sincere efforts to contribute truly portrays you as a simple minded dumb ass! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.146.126 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Trolling gets you a timeout. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NP

Apologies - the system for creating an essay left me in mainspace, and I moved the essay <g> to WP: space but I did not have the power to remove the spoor left behind. Thank you! Collect (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect, no need to apologize - I've done that myself! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Utigur Bulgars

Hello,

You might be interested in reading the real article Utigurs Bulgars. It is instructive how biased and one-sided WP articles could be. Also it is an interesting topic concerning the origin of western Huns. The article is similar to WP articles and can be read here [13]

--192.71.218.163 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Omar Mateen vandalism

Thanks for reverting that. Is there any way to revdel his edits? It seems a shame to give the numbskull the exposure he was after. How about DENY + IAR? John from Idegon (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

John from Idegon WP:RD3 covers it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Olympiacos CFP

Hi, could you semi-protect Talk:Olympiacos CFP for a while? Vrahomarinaner's IP keeps spamming the page with a youtube video. Sro23 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have died down but I'll keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

He is spamming me without reason

I am not affiliated to the reported account (Gstigler) I dont know what are the fundaments of the user: Sro23 to involved me in that dispute. Plase remove me of this, and unblock my user because I didnt do anything againts the community, just contribs with good faith, and he constantly remove the information!!! Seriously is annoying... PLEASE CHECK THE 2 ARTICLES THAT I ADDED SOME IFNO AND HE INSISTED TO REMOVE IT WITHOUT ANY GOOD REASON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvenut7 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gstigler --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film

Hello, Neil. Thanks for blocking Sroo23. I suspect that sockpuppet is related to the IP editor(s) who have been blanking the link in the "See also" section at 12 Years a Slave (film) and also making personal arguments at Talk:White savior narrative in film. I've tried to explain on the talk page why the content is valid, but their responses (and related edits) seem to indicate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not sure what is actionable here, like WP:CHECK or just disengaging until they decide to be aggressive in blanking. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Since it's a dynamic IP and messages left on user talk pages probably won't be seen, I've left a note about edit warring on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: This is confusing, but I'll try to explain. I don't think Sroo23 is related to the IP who keeps removing content from 12 Years a Slave (film). For the past couple of days, an different vandal has been undoing my recent edits at random just to bug me. They also created User:Sroo23 and User:Sro32 to impersonate me. My edit to 12 Years a Slave was recent and just happened to be one of their targets. It's a coincidence and they are not related to the Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99 range who seems to be more interested in your edits than mine. Sro23 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sro23, thanks for clarifying. I guess our respective disputes overlapped. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Neil, see this. I decided to disengage, and I suspect this editor will be unruly in their conduct based on their opinion of things. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Can a range block be done here? This happened (and is not related to the Sroo23 incident). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Erik, no, sorry, this is a content dispute and the IP is using the talk page. If they break WP:3RR please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Disruption says, "A block for disruption may be necessary in response to... breaching the policies or guidelines." The IP editor is breaching WP:NPOV in removing a link purely based on their own POV of it (they have never invoked any sourcing). As WP:NPOV says in a footnote, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I would go through the motions of uw-delete1-4 to ultimately report a block except for the fact that it is a dynamic IP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Erik, except the IP is giving reasons for the removal, indirectly referring to WP:WEIGHT, and another experienced editor seems to think the situation is not clear-cut. Please stop trying to win this dispute through a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Neil, WP:WEIGHT is where it says that a Wikipedia editor's viewpoint is not relevant and should not be considered in such matters. The editor is borderline disruptive in their incivility (the abusive language can be seen on the talk page) and their blanking based on their personal POV pushing. I'm not sure what Matt thinks is the issue here, and I am engaging him on that, but that does not validate this IP editor's actions to date. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views..." For example, if someone digs up a source stating the U.S. is really an oligarchy, there's going to be extensive discussion on the talk page if the Oligarchy category is added to the article. Not saying this situation is as controversial, but it is a legitimate content dispute any editor (IP or otherwise) is free to pursue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Alright, I'll do my best to engage in discussion. My frustration is that they are just shooting from their hip with their disputing. To me, it's like them wanting to blank content about evolution because of their personal take on how it is flawed. The white savior is a valid sociological topic, and its presence in an individual film article can vary from being a key sub-topic to just being a tangentially related link to a place to read about the film among others in the context of the general sociological topic. I'm especially displeased with the abusive language that comes with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So you'll have to excuse me for wanting this to be nipped in the bud. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Persistent vandalism at Peder Severin Krøyer. Please do something. 23 editor (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Action taken. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernhard_Goetz

Talk:Bernhard_Goetz#Other_guys - Can you take a look and see if anything needs to be done or said? I don't want to get into an edit war over there. Felsic2 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-NPOV Editing in The Zeitgeist Movement Wiki

Hi, I'd like to report James Earl King Jr.'s biased/non neutral editing on the Zeitgeist Movement page This editor makes negligent sweeping reverts of well sourced, matter of fact contributions, instead of careful good faith considerations. See example: wp:diff of his revert https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=727635646&oldid=726969643. The person shapes this page in an obvious bias, though I have to think they mean well and may just not see the disproportion of their editing. IntegrasRadiata (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingshowman socks

Hi, Neil! Today you blocked 63.143.206.232 as an obvious sock of Kingshowman. A few days ago you blocked 63.143.203.246 for block evasion with disruptive editing of the same type. In both cases, they were posting at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 with long-winded expositions of negative material about Trump. In between those two blocks the (obviously) same user made a few similar edits to that page using 63.143.202.255, 63.143.203.202, 63.143.200.218, and 63.143.201.75. Do you think it's time to look for a rangeblock? Or since I participate in that page, should I just duck-block the person every time they come back? (I think I can do that despite being WP:INVOLVED, what do you think?) Pinging User:MrX because he was the one who recognized this sockmaster. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There may be too many IP addresses for a range block. I would like to recommend that we agressively delete any and all contributions of this user as soon as they appear, per WP:EVADE. Engaging in discussion with them tends to encourage more sockpuppetry, disruption, and blatant WP:BLP violations. I do think you should be able to duck block them as well. - MrX 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete, or hat? I see that you hatted them all at the talk page (making it much more readable). Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally I delete them mercilessly, but in this case, I hatted them in deference to you and the others who had already responded to the sock. You're right though, I might as well have just taken a yellow highlighter to all of the socks comments. - MrX 20:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think hatting was the right thing to do. Not only because we had responded, but because one other editor was planning to use some of their links in creating a section. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: 63.143.200.0/21 is the range in question. I looked at the contribs since June 1 and maybe 50% of the non-sock edits aren't vandalism or disruptive (a lower percentage are actually useful). For now, I would just just duck-block. Socks don't get to involve anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No point in bothering with the old ones, but as new ones come along I will shut them down. A few days seems to be long enough; either that's a very dynamic IP or else they are moving around a public library changing computers every few minutes. Wouldn't put it past them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan conflict

Hi Neil, I suppose you have noticed that there has been a slow edit-war going on at Balochistan conflict. Here is the story of the user [14] who has been driving it. I have pinged you from the discussion. I would appreciate if you can tell him what to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

right of using File:Hovind(1).jpg

As it says in the wikimedia commons' explications, the picture added can be use because it's someone else's work with the author granted permission to copy it. It is actualy a picture from a 1999 videotape where the author explicitly mentionned that there is no copyright on his product. The tape is from the Creation science evangelism collection and is titled Creation/evolution debate; Genesis: History or Myth By Dr. Kent E Hovind (1999). So doesn't make it alright to edit this picture on Kent Hovind wiki page? 104.221.72.180 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 104. The file uploaded to Commons makes no such mention of this permission. Is this videotape recording on the web somewhere? Else, can you upload a digitized copy to Commons that includes the recorder's comments? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you missed a spot.

I am referring to this revision, to be specific. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Blake Gripling, thank you, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Blake Gripling (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN,

First of all, I would like to say sorry to you for removing directly without reason description about the section "sexual assault allegations" under Park Yoochun on July 1. I am a new user for editing Wikipedia and I haven't noticed that here is a "talk" function to communicate and discuss with the original editor for the section. Please accept my apology.

Hereby I would like to communicate with you for the following two points regarding the article "Park Yoochun":

1) Since the allegation are still under investigation by South Korea police up to date and we are all waiting for the truth which will be announced by Police. Therefore, it seems to be a kind of sneer rather than a firmed introduction to put the following "quoted" description right in the first section the introduction of Park Yoochun. I would like to suggest that the following description under the first section introducing Park Yoochun can be removed.

quoted

In 2016, while in the middle of his two-year mandatory military service, Park became the subject of a string of sexual assault charges earning him the nickname "Korea's Bill Cosby".[1]

unquoted

2) Following point (1) mentioned above, according to the public information on the news we can read up to date, all the allegations has still been under investigated by the South Korean Police. From the basic human rights perspective, I would like to suggest that the title of the section "sexual assault allegations" under Park Yoochun can be changed to "Controversy - sexual assault allegation " instead of "sexual assault allegation". I have no further suggestion on other detailed description under the section since they are all from news whether TV or newspaper or internet, people can read the news sources clearly.

Thanks a lot for your attention on my suggestions listed above and looking forward to see the modification soon. Hope this kind of discussion can make Wikipedia continuing being a free and good platform for truth and knowledge sharing.

Regards,

Leeyinggao

July 2, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeyinggao (talk • contribs) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Smeeth page

On the dispute on editing the Ruth Smeeth page, the facts are as follows. Ruth Smeeth has put out a statement on her website stating that a speaker at an event had accused her of being part of a "media conspiracy" and that this constituted an anti-semitic trope. Smeeth placed those words in inverted commas in her statement and this is widely understood to represent a direct quote. Video footage of the event shows, clearly, that the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not utter those words,or even either one of those words. That video footage is available on the website of The Independent newspaper, in an article entitled "Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links". This article is included as cited source 6 in the Ruth Smeeth page, which is a point made by an editor other than myself. While the article does not specifically say that Smeeth's statement was factully incorrect, it is clear from watching the video of the event, which is included on the article page, that he said no such thing. That is a perfectly valid source for my edit which says that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. Subsequent to my editing the article to say that, my edit was almost immediately reverted by the user This is Paul, on the grounds that I had not cited a proper source. I had initially cited an article on the blog of the senior British diplomat and former amabassador, Craig Murray. Murray's article includes a link to the video on The Independent as well as direct quote from Ruth Smeeth's statement and compares the two. He draws the explicit conclusion that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul objected that Murray's blog was not a valid source and suggested that I use more "credible" sources such as mainstream media, providing a list of what he considered to be "credible" sources, including The Independent. I subsequently removed the link to Muray's article and linked solely to The Independent article that included the original video footage of the event. That can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html

I also edited my contribution to read " Video footage of the event, however, shows that Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate as the speaker, Marc Wadsworth, did not use the term "media conspiracy" or either of those two words individually." This makes explicit that my source is the video footage of the event itself, rather than the opnion of the journalist in the article. My source is entirely within the standards required for a Wikipedia edit and it also clearly supports my contribution that Ruth Smeeth's statement was factually inaccurate. This is Paul has repeatedly reverted my edit, offering a variety of changing reasons why he has done so. Initially, he claimed that my source was not reliable and, ultimately, in our discussion on this article on the Admin noticeboard he states "FWIW I personally don't believe she is directly quoting Wadsworth, but is instead using the quotes to define the term, which is something slightly different." He is now basing his reversions of my edit on his personal belief of what Smeeth meant, rather than the facts that I have cited and backed-up from a higly-creadible source. He is not editing from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand.

The debated issue in this article involves a politician at the heart of a high-profile controversy and there are clearly people interested in guiding this narrative. The involvement of the user Philip_Cross in making the exact reversions to my edit that This is Paul did withim minutes of my having put the information back into the article also suggest that the removal of my edit is not being done from a neutral editor. Philip_Cross's activiities on Wikipedia were flagged in the March 2016 issue of Wikipedia Signpost; please see the March issue of Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/In_the_media . He took over the job of reverting my edits after I flagged the matter of This is Paul's constant reversions on the Admins' noticeboard. To reiterate, these reversions are not being done from a Neutral Point of View and my edit should be allowed to stand.